Christina Xydias’ review of my book is a stimulating invitation to rethink sociological questions in the light of political science approaches. Below, I engage with her three remarks.

First, Xydias emphasizes the role of institutional political contexts, beyond the social and cultural contexts with which I engage. Indeed, in my book, the features of national political systems and the electoral success or crisis of PRR parties mainly appear through the experiences of their members—my informants. They constitute the (macro- and meso-level) settings where individual biographies are inscribed. Focusing on the (understudied) supply side of PRR politics was my choice from the outset. As a qualitative sociologist, I examined social practices and relations within PRR parties, which is rarely done. This approach emphasizes the subjective perception of (objective) institutional constraints/opportunities. Without denying the relevance of institutional contexts in shaping PRR politics, I argue that we can’t fully understand its drivers from the external (socioeconomic and political) conditions in which the mobilization emerges: internal dynamics within parties can turn attitudes into participation (Kathleen Blee, “Ethnographies of the far right,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 36 (2), 2007).

Second, the author invites me to consider the role of organizational factors. Formal gender institutions, such as quotas, undoubtedly affect the activists’ experiences. My book indicates that even in masculinist PRR parties, women’s subgroups can (tentatively) lobby for greater gender equality. The presence (as in the Lega in Italy) or absence (as in the Rassemblement national in France) of a women-only subgroup can affect the likelihood of gender antagonism. My data suggests a greater propensity of Italian activists in voicing concerns about women’s discrimination. Even if PRR women’s subgroups are associated with gender essentialistic notions of “women’s issues,” they seem to function as spaces enabling women’s criticism of sexism, including in their own party. Future research could explore how organizational aspects shape PRR women’s participation and gender politics.

Finally, Christina Xydias’ review interrogates the relevance of my findings beyond Western Europe. I analyze two PRR (more broadly, far-right) gendered discourses: the racialization of sexism (the appropriation of gender equality issues to target the migrants) and the anti-gender/anti-feminist narrative. Far-right gender discourses/positions are variable and context-dependent: institutions and cultures of religion/secularism are key to explaining inter-party and cross-national differences. However, the relationship between secularization/religion regimes and far-right modernist gender frames (such as the racialization of sexism) is complex. In some instances, such frames are employed by the far right in less secularized contexts, such as the United States and Central and Eastern Europe, possibly due to the growing transnationalization of far-right ideas, an issue that begs further research.

Christina Xydias’ reading of my book thus reveals the potential that greater dialogue between disciplines, and between institutionalist and constructivist approaches, holds for advancing our understanding of PRR gender politics.